If your player tries to argue that rule, simply say "no". Period. "I'm not going to accept a permanent ambulatory bonus-giver into the game because that's not how I interpret the rule. If you feel otherwise, you can run a game for us, and we'll try hard to find ourselves a lucky halfling "

I agree, although it would be awfully tempting to simply run with it. And clarify a few things... for example, if there are multiple halfling allies, do you add all the modifiers together, or randomly determine which one applies? Either way, the players might decide to reinterpret the rule when they realize just how often they run into really UNLUCKY halfling allies on their adventures....

The rules do specify that the party can have only a single lucky charm halfling. I actually think that the limitation of just one lucky charm makes it more likely that this shared-modifier interpretation might be intentional. Two or even three halflings spending luck on allies' rolls doesn't sound like a big deal to me, but if they can share their modifier, the advantage becomes pretty ridiculous.

I am confident the last sentence just means that there are no limitations to which rolls or roll types the halfling may spend his luck on for the ally. If the ally could spend luck on that roll, the halfling may as well.

While you can argue that it isn't strictly needed, it is often the case that an expansive clarifying sentence is put in after a simple rule for emphasis. I agree that the word 'modifier' is a poor word choice, but it is actually a rather difficult concept to enumerate in a simple sentence.

This quote from an earlier thread seems to put the kibosh on the wandering luck modifier interpretation:

goodmangames wrote:

The halfling is weak on his own, but when his Luck score is combined with the rest of the party, he becomes "the ultimate team player." I have seen halfling characters save an entire party on multiple occasions. That "good luck charm" ability, when used at the right time, can swing an entire encounter - push an attack roll over the edge, combine with spell burn to make an awesome spell check, save the rogue that has already burned his Luck surviving traps, etc.

I would expect the free-range modifier ability to be worth a mention by the designer if it was intended.

I still think it's an intriguing idea, though, and one I'm only half-convinced would be unbalancing (as long as the judge was mindful of avoiding imbalance).

I noticed an odd bit of wording in the text describing the "third" use of the halfling good luck charm.

If you read the first 5 sentences of the paragraph, it appears to me to be clear and complete: a halfling can spend his own luck on behalf of an ally.

And then there's an additional sentence: "The halfling's Luck modifier can apply to any roll made by an ally: attack rolls, damage rolls, saves, spell checks, thief skills, and so on."

To me, this last sentence is entirely extraneous if it is referring to the halfling spending luck on an ally's behalf. We already know that expended luck can apply to all of those kinds of rolls.

But the sentence doesn't say, "Luck expended can apply to ..." It says, "The halfling's Luck modifier."

Read literally, the sentence means that, in addition to being able to expend luck on an ally's behalf, the halfling can actually add his Luck modifier to allies' rolls at will. That would mean that a party that included a halfling with a Luck score of 18 would have a permanent +3 to all their rolls unless the halfling spent some of his luck and reduced his current Luck so that his modifier dropped.

Am I being crazy to even consider the possibility that this literal interpretation is what the rule intends?

I agree, the text could have been worded a little better to avoid the possibility that someone could misinterpret the rules this way, but as I've stated elsewhere I think that anytime you can interpret the letter of the rules two ways, and one way makes sense and the other doesn't, you should always go with the way that makes sense. The notion of adding the halflings's Luck modifier to everyone's rolls is ridiculous, so I would assume that by "Modifier" the writier intended to mean "Expended Luck".

I agree, the text could have been worded a little better to avoid the possibility that someone could misinterpret the rules this way, but as I've stated elsewhere I think that anytime you can interpret the letter of the rules two ways, and one way makes sense and the other doesn't, you should always go with the way that makes sense. The notion of adding the halflings's Luck modifier to everyone's rolls is ridiculous, so I would assume that by "Modifier" the writier intended to mean "Expended Luck".

Thanks for chiming in. Did you have any thoughts on the various supporting ideas I provided throughout the discussion (e.g., the fact that almost any expenditure of Luck by the halfling reduces the "wandering modifier" to +1 at most and can even create a negative wandering modifier, providing interesting fodder for party interactions and strategic use of Luck by the halfling)? I think those supporting notions lessen the degree to which the basic idea can fairly be called "ridiculous," but of course you're free to disagree.

Note that this is all academic at this point; as I indicated a few posts back, there's a post elsewhere by the designer that makes it highly unlikely that the phrase "Luck modifier" was meant to be read literally.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum